Churches and the 501 c 3 tax exempt status..

Coming out of the Houston Mayor's fiasco and attempt to censor a church/churches and Ministers...comes this little nugget.

I was surprised about this article because I knew that the 501 c 3 tax exempt status for Churches was a phony. It is merely a way to get around separation of church and state on the part of government.

What has been done for years and years now it that Churches file for a tax number under the government issued 501 c 3 status.
What this means at law..is that this church with this number...the church is now a state created corporation..a creature of the state. Being now a creature of the state..these churches can now be controlled and regulated as any other corporation.

If a church teaches and preaches something government does not like or of which government does not approve they can be censored, audited as a threat...or control measure and forced into compliance.

This means that a Church can be controlled in what they teach and preach and are not going to be allowed to teach and preach the Whole Council of God.

This......is not separation of church and state. ..it is control and censorship.

The author in this article does not go sufficiently far in their explaination..but does mention that churches should not have 501 c 3 status.

Churches should be tax immune ..not tax exempt. Churches should never be a creature of the state. A state corporation.


Here is the link...

rebelpundit.com...


This is one of the few times I have ever seen an article even mentioning this line of thought.


Thanks,
Orangetom

a reply to: orangetom1999

No. Any church can preach whatever it wants to whomever will listen, but if they choose to do that, they pay taxes just like any other for-profit business. If; however, they want to be considered a charity and they want to avoid paying taxes, then they must follow certain guidelines among which are separation of church and state policies. This is almost never enforced. How many preachers from tax exempt organizations have you seen speaking out against laws and government policies? This is basically designed to prevent a church from being turned into a campaigning mechanism for someone's political ambitions as has been done in so many other countries, generally by wanna be dictators.

I agree. In order to have true freedom of religion, the churches shouldn't be under threat of taxation.

People will fire back that churches make lots of money, but the money a church makes has already been taxed once when it was put into the pocket of the individual as a part of their income. And churches, while they might be made immune from tax, would still have to pay for all their goods and services to which taxes are attached.

So just because the church as an entity is not directly taxed or controlled through threat of direct tax does not free it from having to pay its own way in society through various means.

a reply to: orangetom1999
State power in relation to churches doesn't come from technicalities of legal wording.
It comes from the fact that churches hold property, and deciding on questions of property ownership has always been a function of the state.
That's been true for about 1700 years.
What you're pointing out is a bit of abstract theorising which makes no practical difference.

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: orangetom1999

No. Any church can preach whatever it wants to whomever will listen, but if they choose to do that, they pay taxes just like any other for-profit business. If; however, they want to be considered a charity and they want to avoid paying taxes, then they must follow certain guidelines among which are separation of church and state policies. This is almost never enforced. How many preachers from tax exempt organizations have you seen speaking out against laws and government policies? This is basically designed to prevent a church from being turned into a campaigning mechanism for someone's political ambitions as has been done in so many other countries, generally by wanna be dictators.

Except that these days, certain Bible passages are considered "political" speech and can be used to threaten tax status.

a reply to: ketsuko

I'd like to see any situation where a church has been threatened by government for its interpretation of biblical passages. Maybe once in awhile a megachurch with broad influence will come under heat for playing too friendly with a congressmen or something like that, but the average church which is peppered across this country can practically preach whatever it wants with no oversight. Only 100 organizations countrywide each year lose their 501c3 status for any given reason and many of them get theirs back after making adjustments to their operating habits. Considering the fact that even a small town of 5000 people might have 8 different churches in it, this is almost never happening. I mean we are basically crying out against a problem which could exist in theory, but presently doesn't.

I'd like to see any situation where a church has been threatened by government for its interpretation of biblical passages.

I can remember back in the 1980s where Pat Robertson and his group were audited by the Feds because they were teaching and preaching on the new coloured paper money which was supposed to be coming out back then.

The danger was that they would eventually demonstrate where paper money was a form of Unjust weights and measures...and a counterfeit.
That even the coinage was counterfeit....and a form of Unjust weights and measures.

Pat and his group were suddenly audited under a conservative Republican administration...and that topic of the money system quickly disappeared from the program never to be brought up again.

The Bible has definite things to say about systems of Just Weights and Measures..which is what a money system is supposed to be.

If this could be demonstrated on Pat Robertson's program...it could be demonstrated where, when, and how our own government had privily switched to the god of unjust weights and measures..to the counterfeiter and told no one they had done this...how they kept a whole nation of Americans ignorant to this fact.

This is how I have known for many many many years that the Republicans are not conservatives...they are merely Democrat Lite.

The two party system is a hoax...itself a counterfeit.


But I digress here...


Churches are being subsidized by government tax breaks...a price support..a tax subsidy. This too is not separation of church and state. Common sense....something greatly missing from "Enlightened" Americans today.

No church should be tax subsidized...this too is not separation of church and state. Not on the part of the government and not on the part of the churches. I only know of one church which will teach this to their flocks.

Some of you are not thinking this through to the reality of it..staying in leagalize...the ballywick of government and its religion of Lucifereianism...counterfeiting more than just the money.

Obviously this is not true...about churches playing loose with many things as demonstrated by what happened in Houston. Particularly in today's PC world.

PC is to me a cover world for hiding a counterfeit and also censorship..mind control.

What you're pointing out is a bit of abstract theorising which makes no practical difference.

There is nothing abstract about what happened to Pat Robertson and his church..nor other preachers like James Dobson.
Nothing abstract about what happened in Houston to those Pastors and their churches.

What you are looking at here is a conflict between two religons...the devout and zealous religion of politics and the Churches who desire to teach and preach the Whole Council of God.

And yes...it is becoming obvious that Politics has become a devout and zealous religion complete with shills and cheering section ..called the Media...all of the Media. And this other religion of politics is in competition with thinking..and desiring censorship and mind control..to stop people from thinking for themselves.

This is what I like and appreciate about ATS and other sites..where there are people who can see through this stuff and think for themselves. That these people can connect together and share ideas and thoughts ..outside the PC variety.


This is why I say..for churches to have true separation of church and state....they should be tax immune..not tax exempt.

Furthermore..for those of you not schooled in it...Separation of Church and state was for the purpose of a limit on government...so that government would not usurp the churches and their teaching and preaching over to government uses...as being attempted to be done in the case of Houston.

This falls in line with the olde dictum of "Divne Right of Kings."

We know this because during several incidents of this current administration...references have been made by several public figures that this President is not a King. Separation of Church and State...Divine Right of Kings...Absolute Power.

To bring about another devout and zealous religion which is so obviously not the product advertised.

Some people are catching on to this....about politics. That it is in fact a devout and zealous religion...and in zealous competition with other religions.



All of the First Ten Amendments are limits on government.....and were intended to be that way. And government has worked continuously to find a way around each of them.

You cannot have freedom of religion and separation of church and state when both government and churches are so obviously in bed with each other and no one is telling the flocks/sheep that this is happening.

A church should never be subsidized by public tax monies. The public giving to the church directly/voluntarily I have no problem with this. But a tax subsidy/price support is not separation of church and state.

Hope this helps some of you to think through this kind of thing.

Thanks,
Orangetom

a reply to: orangetom1999

As an accountant, no. 501(c)(3) status is actually a tax exemption that, at worst, requires a different form of accounting. It does not authorize the state to essentially control the functions of the charitable non-profit.

For more information about 501(c)(3) rules for churches, here you go:
IRS on Churches and Political Activities
Like any other 501(c)(3), it is restricted from political campaign intervention. From the above link:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.

That ruling is across the board for all 501(c)(3) and is specifically in regards to political candidates. That doesn't mean, however, that a minister who chooses to do a sermon that backs the ideals of a specific political candidate can't happen. It just means the minister can't say "Go vote for this dude". So while the minister can preach what he wants (outside of those things that are not protected free speech--those do exist--fire in a theater type stuff) on everything under the sun except for endorsing a candidate. That is the only limit.

Non-profits still can be for candidates, however, and they can do so by becoming a 527 organization:

IRS page on Non-profits/Political Organizations

originally posted by: orangetom1999
Coming out of the Houston Mayor's fiasco and attempt to censor a church/churches and Ministers...comes this little nugget.

I was surprised about this article because I knew that the 501 c 3 tax exempt status for Churches was a phony. It is merely a way to get around separation of church and state on the part of government.

What has been done for years and years now it that Churches file for a tax number under the government issued 501 c 3 status.
What this means at law..is that this church with this number...the church is now a state created corporation..a creature of the state. Being now a creature of the state..these churches can now be controlled and regulated as any other corporation.

If a church teaches and preaches something government does not like or of which government does not approve they can be censored, audited as a threat...or control measure and forced into compliance.

This means that a Church can be controlled in what they teach and preach and are not going to be allowed to teach and preach the Whole Council of God.

This......is not separation of church and state. ..it is control and censorship.

The author in this article does not go sufficiently far in their explaination..but does mention that churches should not have 501 c 3 status.

Churches should be tax immune ..not tax exempt. Churches should never be a creature of the state. A state corporation.


Here is the link...

rebelpundit.com...


This is one of the few times I have ever seen an article even mentioning this line of thought.


Thanks,
Orangetom

This is a tax exempt for non-profits and charities.

If it were true that churches should not teach or preach about certain things because it is political, then churches would never be able to say anything because everything is political.

Do people want politically correct churches or do they want to allow freedom of speech and religious expression? You know, you people can't have your cake and eat it too. And if you are for churches not being able to express their religious views, then you are not separating church from state, you are endorsing a policy that all religions bend to popular culture by using the government to do it

Just who is behind the lobbying for separation of church and state? Right now, there is no church that controls the state which is how it was when the Constitution was framed and yet every one of the founding fathers had some form of religious expression. The only thing they were concerned about was the US not being part of the Anglican church.

That's what you have to go back to understanding. And while we are talking about US presidents, remember that JFK signed to the order to take prayer out of school, after the lobbying of Madelyn Murray O'Hair, and yet I seem to recall that it was in a church that held his funeral. You simply cannot divide a person from their faith, even if they are the president.

The confusion of people is not when it comes to separation of church and state, but only what they want churches to teach. That is called pop culture mentality and people jump on that bandwagon because it isn't enough for people to separate church and state, they want separation of church and society.

We are not living under a theocracy, like it was in Jefferson's day. A little history of the pre-Revolution colonies, the Anglican church was designed first as a political entity because Henry VIII claimed himself as head and Defender of the Church of England. Queen Elizabeth II today still holds that title. Not one single president has ever claimed title of Defender of the Church of the United States, because there is none. However, remember William Penn was given Pennsylvania as land grants from King George to establish a place of religious freedom outside the Church of England, we have that whole state today that actually began as a religious colony, and Rhode Island was founded by Roger Williams, for that same purpose.

There is no Church of the United States, there never will be, and that was true essence of Jefferson's meaning. But when churches that are limited in what they can teach because it might be political, think about this, right now churches are only protected because of freedom of religious expression, which includes political things, because politics and religion go hand in hand, always that has been the case.

I believe the true motive is separation of church and society, and if that is really what it is about then who is doing the lobbying to accomplish that? We could go the way of the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary and China, if that's what you want. But then you would have to be living in a society that doesn't allow you to speak or express any views whatsoever.

When a church is not taxed does not mean it cannot say what it wants, it simply means that the church is non-profit agency, and yet many churches are and churches still have to be audited and account for where the money is going because churches are required to give you a statement to file for your own tax filing. If one doesn't like what a church teaches, go somewhere else, but don't demand the church be subject to approval from pop culture. Church is part of society the same way every charity agency is.

If you give money in church and the minute you file that statement for claiming it as charity on your part and you get it back from the government, that means you have not separated that church from the state and are using the government to control what the church teaches. Are churches really tax exempt? Not when they are required for tax purposes to accommodate people getting tax returns Not only that, pastors are paid income from churches and are required to pay taxes on that income. So there is no true separation of church and state, because the state still takes his money.

But to complain about whether or not a pastor can preach certain messages because you think it is too political, then you have denied his right to freedom of religious expression. Remember, it is only the church itself that can claim tax exempt not the people. That is why most churches have to be incorporated and the state is still controlling the church.

This extends to universities that are founded by religious orders. Brigham Young is a Mormon university and look at the Catholic ones, Biola, Loyola-Marymount and Notre Dame. Those are just a few of the Catholic ones, but they all take federal aid and receive federal aid for students but are required to not teach certain things. The state is still controlling what they teach.

But if you go to a small college that isn't accredited, because it teaches something that you agree with, you will not receive accreditation and your degree is worthless, but it wasn't controlled by the state. That means there has been no separation of church and state because the state still controlled it. And if the government is controlling every aspect of religious expression, then the lobbyists who demand separation better start demanding the government have less control of churches, because right now, the government controls your religion.

If there is to be true separation of church and state, then stop demanding the state control the churches.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Ahhhh...yes...my thanks to you for a very informative history lesson. It is seldom on ATS that someone knows much of this type of history.

It has been some time now and I have loaned out the book, never to get it back again..but this book was very informative about what went on in the US colonies in an attempt to establish a state church in the various colonies before indepencence took place.

This book was titled Separation of Church and State in Virginia. As a by product of the title, mention was made of what was going on or to be attempted in the other colonies outside of Virginia. Very informative and full of histories for which the average American has no clue nor interest.

Absolutely correct here..you are one of the few to get it right..

If you give money in church and the minute you file that statement for claiming it as charity on your part and you get it back from the government, that means you have not separated that church from the state and are using the government to control what the church teaches.

and here again..

Are churches really tax exempt? Not when they are required for tax purposes to accommodate people getting tax returns Not only that, pastors are paid income from churches and are required to pay taxes on that income. So there is no true separation of church and state, because the state still takes his money.

Churches should be tax immune ..not tax exempt. It is interesting to me that the accountant above...White Alice..does not make the distinction of That government issued tax status..being that of a creature created by the state..no separation possible here. This is illustrative of someone brought up in the system and never thinking outside of state authorized thinking. We are never to know that there is another system out here and it has been there all along.

For I know what it means at law not to have an SSN...something never allowed to be taught to Americans and knowledge never taught in today's public schools. Same principle with not having a tax number...and never allowed to be known by indivual Americans. This knowledge is hidden..occult..concealed..esoteric.

I should tell you that I am not at all interested in the state controlling the church. Just the opposite in fact. At the same time ..I am not in favor of The church interfering in the matters of the state and in favor of the church as was done so often in Europe by the RCC and later the Anglican Church. The history of which you narrate here is quite correct and again my thanks in this for your post.
I also believe that the founding fathers were well aware of this history on the part of the state as well as heavy handed interference by the church..particularly the Anglican and RCC Churches.



This quote of your's is absolutely true. Thanks again for posting it.

If it were true that churches should not teach or preach about certain things because it is political, then churches would never be able to say anything because everything is political.

Governments historically tend to be very insecure about their power and any challenge or perceived challenge to their power and authority.

Reading John Foxxe and his "Book of Martyrs" brought this point home quite clearly. Not just with the RCC but the Anglican and Lutheran Churches as well.

As I recall it was religious persecution by the State authorized Anglican Church which paved the way for some of the early colonists to arrive here at Plymouth.

I should tell you ,WarminIndy, that I am about 30 miles south of Jamestown, Virginia..where a lot of history transpired in reference to this topic and this country. Not just political history but religious as well.

Do people want politically correct churches or do they want to allow freedom of speech and religious expression?

I hate PC. I consider Political Correctness to be nothing more than disguised censorship and mind control...ie..propaganda. I am for freedom of speech and religious expression.

For I know enough history to understand that the time of Enlightenment has not been the product advertised..as is become Politics today..not the product advertised.

For I know historically what happened in England after Oliver Cromwell died and the kings returned...the nation discovered gin and went on a nationwide Drunk. England went into the dregs and the laws that they passed reflected that they had gone into the dregs...the pits.

And yet..I am not against alcohol. I am against drunkenness and the stupidity and depravity which so often follows this drunkenness.

I reckon one could say I am against stupid...or stupidity.

And I find this façade of separation of church and state through tax subsidities to the churches to be stupidity as well as lie..a deceit. Not the product advertised.

You cannot have separation of church and state when the government is price supporting the churches by a tax write off. Not possible.

This is a lie and deception on the part of the churches and on the part of the state. It is also and obviously how the state controls the churches. Or put another way..they are in bed together. I do not approve of this on the part of the Churches nor on the part of the state.

I am not in favor of GFW Hegel..."The State is god." And that is where we are rapidly moving today under Enlightened, Educated, Illuminated men.

This incident in Houston clearly illustrates this point though I have known of it happening previous to this recent incident.

I should shorten and conclude this post before running out of characters.

Thank You for your very informative post WarminIndy. It is quite refreshing to read a post where someone knows such history. Refreshing indeed.

I will close by stating again..that I am not at all in favor of government or the state controlling the churches.

Thanks,
Orangetom

WarminIndy,

I'm going to drop this in here as history as well as what I call "Seed Corn" for next years crop. The idea here is that it is seed corn among some..not many ..for next years crop. It only takes a few.

What little I know about English History..and Oliver Cromwell...The English Civil war has to do with how this pertains to the founding of this nation and the Constitution of the United States and how and why it was so written.

For Oliver Cromwell found himself at the head of an army fighting a system of absolute power in the hands of the state. "Divine Right of Kings."

For King Charles 1st. Wanted to pass a tax to subsidize a war on the continent. But the Magna Carta stated that only Parliament could pass a tax. The King operated on the centuries olde principle of Divine Right of Kings...that his power was from God and therefore he was above any law...not accountable....absolute power. The King could make or break any law and not be accountable as were other men. For his power was from God through the state run and authorized church.

This caused much friction and as the sides were drawn...it wound up in a Civil War. By the time this Civil War Ended in 1649..the King was lead to the scaffold and executed by beheading. His blood did not run royal blue.

This marks the first time in the history of the western world that a ordinary people had ever executed their king. Royalty had so often plotted against royalty but not the ordinary people.

But the point was made...for history..that when a King has broken the law..they could be made accountable..they were not divine right kings. This was the lesson ..the precedent made here in the colonies when King George wanted to levy another tax...just as did King Charles to fight another war. And the founders knew this history about Oliver Cromwell...and England.

They had a precedent ..that a people could turn on their King. This is history if you know how to read it. But it will never be taught this way in public schools. They do not dare.

You are never to know the religious significance of what happened in England and how it pertains to us as Americans.

Divine Right of Kings or Absolute Power ...is not separation of church and state. And it is always the direction historically that enlightened, educated, Illuminated men tend to go....back to absolute power.

This means they must destroy any competition for ideas and knowledge. It will not be tolerated...and must needs be censored..subject to PC thinking and management...regulation.

And what are they saying today..about what is going on in Washington DC?? Those who know this history..."You are not a King." History repeating itself??? Only most today are ignorant of the history.

I have caught this every time some leader makes such an statement..for I know what it means historically as well as religiously.

Just some additional thoughts on Separation of Church and state and the related...Absolute Power..Divine Right of Kings.


Oh..by the way ..before I close..I think you are absolutely correct in this your statement from your previous post.

I believe the true motive is separation of church and society, and if that is really what it is about then who is doing the lobbying to accomplish that? We could go the way of the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary and China, if that's what you want. But then you would have to be living in a society that doesn't allow you to speak or express any views whatsoever.

Thought I had not thought of it as separation of church and society ..that is exactly what it is. But one can take it further in an attempt to bind people in bondage to the state. This requires a substitution ..preferably without most knowing it is transpiring. A substitute religion..a counterfeit religion of that held by the peoples knowledge and understanding.

Remember..."The State is god."

Therefore this begs the question for those with the knowledge and ability to think it through and this far. What is the name of the substitute religion and what is the name of their god?? Absolute power...in the hands of men.....verses Limited Government as outlined by the founders.

To me this is something people should be able to think through on their own....but not if one has taken a big bite of public education ..without any other basis of Thinking...and Seeing...ie...Knowledge...Wisdom.


Thanks,
Orangetom

a reply to: orangetom1999

I also descend from Huguenots of Manikintown, Virginia. I know the history of State controlled church, remember St. Bartholomew's Day. People don't really know about that either. I descend from David Via, one of the early petitioners for religious freedom in Virginia.

There were also payments of taxes to the church of tobacco and cotton. That was the whole idea behind "Taxation without representation". Had there been representation, we probably would not have had the Revolution because many landed gentry with large plantations were quite content paying taxes with tobacco, and the taxes paid went directly to the Church of England.

I have studied much about my Huguenot ancestors of Manikintown. They were political pawns, because the Huguenots were refugees in England, but the Crown determined that it would collapse the economy so they struck a deal with those Huguenots, they were sent to the colony and given land, but only by becoming British citizens. They were French and placed as a buffer between the Native American tribes and the British landed gentry on plantations. Certainly they would have had divided loyalties between France and England and most Huguenots were never farmers, they were urbanized and educated craftsmen that had no idea of living in a wilderness surrounded by the British and Native Americans.

Remember that most of the wealthy plantation owners were landed gentry and belonged to the Anglican church and it was deemed that even if they didn't go to church, it was against the law. When someone became a British citizen, it was expected of them to become part of the Anglican church. William Penn's father was a Quaker and the Quakers didn't have it so easy either. I read in the writings of George Fox how some women were brutally whipped for speaking out. The Quakers allowed women preachers, which the Anglicans did not.

The Huguenots were French Protestants and were only allowed into England because they were not Catholic. Prior to the Revolution was the French and Indian War, which the British really manipulated a lot. Through their own pandering, it forced the Cherokee against the French, the British kept promising the Cherokee money and food, but just as soon as the War of 1812 concluded, the Cherokee were sent away with the other tribes, including the Creek, in 1830.

The war with the Melungeon was over the whiskey stamp. Melungeon refused the stamp and continued to make and distribute whiskey. The Stamp Act was the first attempt pre-Revolution for the colonies to raise federal money for defense, but who would be defending? The 10,000 troops were British, paid for by taxes because they were Anglican.

At that time, the real war was between Anglican control of the middle colonies and Catholic French control of what is now Canada and Spanish Catholic control of Florida. One church or another was going to control the New World. The British were just a little more savvy. Had it not been for William Penn, there would not have been a great influx of German Mennonites. But Thomas Jefferson opened his own university, called Thomas Jefferson's College, which is now the University of Virginia and was the first non-sectarian university that allowed Jews and...egads..women.

That's the other part of my ancestry, Sephardi Jews from Baltimore that went to Thomas Jefferson's College.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Wow..yes..Indeed...the massacre on St. Bartholomew's Day. Indeed..this is one of the events covered in John Foxe and his Book of Martyrs.

As I also recall some history a similar pattern behind Rome occurred in Ireland about 75 years later..into the 1640s or so...rebellion and massacre.

I am out of the Olde Schhool Baptists and what history I know is from Elders well versed in it and the Hugeunots are mentioned by them in being anti Rome and having been persecuted in Europe for their faith along with others in the high mountain areas of Europe/France..Piedmont area as I recall.
And I believe some of them fleeing these areas of Europe from persecution are also the Mennonites. They were not always well received in England and left there for other opportunities and liberties. This religious history is not well taught in public schools today. One must dig for it.

I am amazed and pleased that you know of it in the manner that you so do. It is gratifying to read it on this thread.

I am in the Hampton Rhodes area of Virginia. In the olde days this area to the mountains was also called Piedmont..after the mountainous areas of Europe where the Protestants sought refuge from Rome.

As far as I can read the history ..the Anglican church was nothing more than English Catholic. Same politics, same outfits/robes...same hats...only the pope was now in Westminster. They too did not brook much competition.


LOL LOL LOL...your use of the word... Melungeon...caused me to look it up. LOL LOL..they were a bunch of what I call Heinz 57's.

Being a Heinz 57 myself..I never put much stock in the English and European trend towards being of one particular blood or another. Not that a person should not know where from they came..their ancestors. They certainly should.
I just don't put a lot o stock in that kind of one-upmanship.
But I am aware that this is very common .not just among westerners but in the orient and other places. I just don't put much stock in it as far as self promotion.
I rate a person on what they know and what they can do with it...or teach others to do or not to do..to teach discernment.

But it is a very interesting thing to know and to read.

Oh..by the way..my name..Orangetom..does not mean I am Irish. It is named for my Orange Tabby cat.
I never thought of the association or the history until a poster here on ATS asked me many years ago if I was Irish.
It was a wake up call ..as I liked to read history. Gave me a new historical arena to explore.



I am aware of the control the various churches were attempting to do in the orient and the new world ..particularly through the Society of Jesus..the Jesuits..even unto today. Through the Spanish and French both.

Also the Jesuit attempts to keep others out of the Orient and Asia in the heavy days of the Armada, trading,...and Spanish exploration/expansion.

The British and British Government ..in religion and politics both are not the product advertised. It appears to me that they were just more adept over time of dealing off the bottom of the deck...than the Spanish or the French.

Ahh..yes..the Sephardi Jews....verses the Ashkenazi. Indeed, that too is an interesting history and one often not known by most westerners...or those outside the faith.

Thanks again for a very interesting post,
Orangetom

a reply to: orangetom1999

Yes, I wasn't sure if you were an Orangeman. LOL.

BTW, my sister lives in your area and is assistant editor of a magazine there that is for people living there and in Norfolk. Maybe you have seen it before. It is about restaurants and such things in that area.

I believe the Huguenots would be considered like Olde School Baptists, like Roger Williams was of Rhode Island. And glad you looked up Melungeon...lol. I do descend from some Melungeon also. They were certainly a colorful bunch of people (don't mind the pun).

WarminIndy and others,

Yes the Huguenots are considered in like manner to the OLde School Baptists or what is sometimes called The Primitive Baptists.

As I stated I am not in favor of State control of the Churches. Nor am I in favor of the Churches controlling the state...either privily or openly. I think the reasons among the founders for this Separation are valid and justifiable. Particularly when one reads the history of this world through Religion and Feudalism combined.

Many years ago I listened to a history lecture on "The Priest Kings" detailing some of the historical Mischief which royalty got into in the name of religion or even in the name of "Divine Right of Kings."

The other problem I have with this history is that in dealing with many atheists on these and other boards ..they..like many Christians...have a very poor grasp of history and what it means. They seem to have the very sanitized version of history or what I call " The blame/victimization game."

They seem want to put much of this blame for history on Religion but know so little about the Priest/Kings relationship and how it was mutually beneficial to both. This is how they blame religion for much of the worlds ills.

What is interesting to me is that they have little to no perspective of the conflicts which have taken place in Western Europe from the period after Waterloo..unto today. In the time of the Enlightenment..where wise men were running things. The time of the great Gnostic, Illuminated, Enlightened, Educated wise men running the world.

There were wars and conflicts aplenty after Waterloo in Europe. In the 1840s, again in the 1860s/70s, and again in the Great War...WW1 and in-between World Wars. And they continue unto today.

What astonished me to learn was a concept of Democide...death by ones own government..not in war but in addition to wars and conflicts.

en.wikipedia.org...

Once you know this aspect of history it makes much of todays news and education very pitiful in what they do not teach in secular history.

So when I see someone trying to claim authority over churches and preachers..ministers...I know the history of both sides...religious as well as secular. Even many of the parts that someone does not want us to know.

Oh..by the way.my mother..German...taught me many years ago ..that in Europe ..the governments used to collect taxes for the Churches. I do not agree with this practice. They should be separated. I do not know if this is still the case in Europe....but I do not agree with it.

Is a person wants to contribute to a Church ...that is between them and them and God. Not between them and the government.

I do not also believe that the government needs to be controlling or subsidizing the charity business. These businesses should not be tax subsidized. If people want to give..that is charity. Giving for a tax break is not charity...whether to a church or another organization.

In like manner giving to a Church should not be done for the purposes of a tax write off.

In like manner...governments should not be using and misusing their tax power ..to regulate churches because they do not like what the Church teaches and preaches...or for this other reason........


I do not know if you are aware of it...but often Church ministries/mission field in foreign countries have among them intelligence types making reports back to someone Stateside or to a government. They are ideal for intelligence gathering of certain types and areas. This is why often in certain nations..foreign ministries/mission fields are so suspect as is the Red Cross. Infiltration by government intelligence gathering agents. Not all of them mind you. It only takes a few.

I do not know how much of this is leveraged by Tax Write offs or tax regulation and control..but it is something about which to think and consider about churches and government in bed together. It is also not a thought pattern or dots for which a Church or government would ever want you to think or connect.

Once again..the Society of Jesus comes to mind though I know there are others and among the Protestants as well.
The inner workings of the Nicaraguan government under the Sandanistas and the connection to the Society of Jesus was a real wake up call to me about churches and their foreign ministries/mission fields.

I am nowdays acutely aware of this fingerprint whenever we offer aid and assistance to a disaster ravaged nation...as to the potential of how many intelligence types are infiltrated into these nations under the guise of foreign aid, Red Cross, rescue, and mission fields.

Nonetheless..once again..I do not approve of Churches and government in bed together. Nor a tax subsidy or price support for the Churches through government.

And this 501 c 3 stuff I find to be exactly that, church and government in bed together and so often in a manner that one one in 10,000 or greater can tell how or why it is being done.

Thanks,
Orangetom